Curtis Aaron White v. State of Mississippi
2017 WL 589908
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2017Background
- Curtis White was convicted in Yazoo County of two counts of gratification of lust and one count of statutory rape involving victim MM (a niece) and separately LM; sentenced to concurrent and consecutive terms and appealed.
- Allegations included two incidents: April 30, 2013 (showing pornography and touching breasts) and April 21, 2014 (sexual intercourse behind a pond); White testified and several witnesses disputed MM’s version.
- Defense sought to admit social-media posts and related testimony to show MM’s motive to fabricate; the trial court excluded the social-media evidence as unauthenticated.
- The trial court admitted (over defense objection) evidence of a nine-year-old, uncharged statutory-rape affair with another minor (AB) and testimony regarding a separate Humphreys County indictment and other bad acts.
- The record contains numerous alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct (improper comments, calling defendant a "pedophile," arguing facts not in evidence), some unobjected to at trial; the court instructed limiting language but the appellate majority found cumulative prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission/authentication of social‑media posts | Posts were irrelevant and unauthenticated; excluded under Rule 901 and Rule 412 | Posts showed motive to fabricate and should be authenticated or at least proffered outside jury presence | Court: Reversed — trial court abused discretion by denying opportunity to authenticate and failing to allow a proffer; exclusion was reversible given defense importance |
| Admission of uncharged affair with AB (prior bad act) | Admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive, intent, plan, opportunity; similar fact evidence | Highly prejudicial, factually dissimilar, remote in time; should be excluded under Rule 403 | Court: Reversed — abuse of discretion; nine‑year‑old, dissimilar offense was minimally probative and highly prejudicial, and court failed to specify permissible 404(b) purpose |
| Admission of Humphreys County indictment/incidents | Necessary to tell the full story of how abuse began; integrally related | Separate county, different facts, remote in time — not integrally related; prejudicial | Court: Reversed — evidence not sufficiently integrally related in time/place/fact; admission was prejudicial and improper |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in cross and closings (cumulative) | Comments were permissible argument, responded to evidence, and any error cured by instructions | Numerous inflammatory, personal‑belief statements, improper facts, vilification ("pedophile"), and exploitation of excluded evidence denied fair trial | Court: Reversed — cumulative/profound misconduct (including calling defendant a pedophile) created unjust prejudice; plain and cumulative error requiring new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Newell v. State, 49 So.3d 66 (Miss. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings — abuse of discretion)
- Smith v. State, 136 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2014) (social‑media authentication principles under Rule 901)
- Edmonds v. State, 955 So.2d 787 (Miss. 2007) (defendant entitled to present defense; limitations subject to rules of evidence)
- Derouen v. State, 994 So.2d 748 (Miss. 2008) (prior sexual‑offense evidence not per se excluded; admissibility under 404(b)/403)
- Flowers v. State, 773 So.2d 309 (Miss. 2000) (necessity to tell a coherent story as a basis for admitting other evidence)
- Mabus v. State, 809 So.2d 728 (Miss. 2001) (relevance and admissibility decisions lie largely within trial court discretion)